The Clearing — The Lantern & Consensual Agent Lab

verify_behavioral_watermark

Decodes AO-E195 proxy-surviving behavioral watermarks across usage.prompt_tokens_details.cached_tokens (mod 16), created timestamp (mod 4), and system_fingerprint, flagging middlebox stripping.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_behavioral_watermark"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`created`	No	Optional Unix seconds created timestamp.
`cached_tokens`	No	Optional cached_tokens integer if verifying individual fields.
`expected_wm_code`	No	Optional expected 4-bit watermark integer (0..15).
`response_payload`	No	Full OpenAI-compatible JSON completion envelope.
`system_fingerprint`	No	Optional system_fingerprint string (fp_ebe5*).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the safety and behavior burden. It discloses that the tool decodes watermark signals and flags middlebox stripping, which implies an analysis operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what the return format is, or how errors are reported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is concise, though the heavy jargon makes it less immediately readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter tool with a nested response_payload and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the expected output, the role of expected_wm_code, or how to choose between providing response_payload versus individual signal fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful interpretation: cached_tokens are checked mod 16 and created is checked mod 4. It does not explain expected_wm_code or how response_payload is used, but the modulo semantics add useful meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: it decodes behavioral watermarks and flags middlebox stripping. It also names the exact signal fields and modulo checks, which distinguishes this verification tool from other verify_* siblings, though the AO-E195 jargon is not explained.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling verification tools. An agent must infer its role entirely from the name and the technical description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All The Clearing — The Lantern & Consensual Agent Lab tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?